[Cite as State v. Taylor,
2025-Ohio-2853.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAWRENCE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 25CA2
v. :
DARRYL D. TAYLOR, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :
_________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Darryl D. Taylor, Caldwell, Ohio, pro se, for appellant.
Brigham M. Anderson, Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Andrea M. Kratzenberg, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Ironton,
Ohio, for appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
DATE JOURNALIZED:8-1-25
ABELE, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal from a Lawrence County Common Pleas
Court judgment that denied a motion filed by Darryl D. Taylor for
“Relief from Judgment or Order for Fraud Upon the Court” pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and a request for a suppression hearing.
{¶2} Appellant raises the following assignment of
error for review:
“TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT
DEFENDANT’S CIV.R. 60(B)(5) RELIEF BASED ON THE
RULE FOLLOWED IN HUFFMAN V. HUFFMAN.”
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
2
{¶3} In 2015, a jury found appellant guilty of (1) drug
trafficking in the presence of juveniles in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(1), a second-degree felony, (2) two counts of drug
trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), third-degree
felonies, (3) and one count of drug trafficking in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a third-degree felony. The trial court
sentenced appellant to serve a total of 13 years in prison. On
April 27, 2016, this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in
part, reversed in part, and remanded for limited resentencing.
State v. Taylor, 2016-Ohio-2781 (4th Dist.).
{¶4} In particular, appellant challenged appellee’s use of a
confidential informant to enter his home and make audio-video
recordings of the controlled drug buys without a search warrant.
Id. at ¶ 34. Because the confidential informant’s actions did not
constitute a search and did not violate appellant’s Fourth
Amendment rights, we overruled that assignment of error. Id. at ¶
38. However, because the trial court failed to inform appellant
that he would be subject to post-release control at the sentencing
hearing, we vacated that portion of the sentence and remanded the
matter for a resentencing hearing in accordance with R.C. 2929.191.
Id. at ¶ 42.
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
3
{¶5} On May 25, 2016, the trial court resentenced appellant to
serve a 13-year prison term. On March 15, 2019, appellant filed a
pro se “motion to vacate void judgment,” and argued that the court
must vacate “void portions of the judgment of conviction based upon
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” On September 19, 2019, the
trial court overruled the motion. Appellant appealed that
judgment, and, on February 17, 2021, this court affirmed the trial
court’s judgment. State v. Taylor, 2021-Ohio-585 (4th
Dist.)(Taylor II). Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Ohio on March 29, 2021, but the Supreme Court
declined to accept jurisdiction.
{¶6} In a separate case in 2021, appellant filed a pro se
“Motion to Suppress” and pro se “Motion for a Franks Hearing.” The
trial court denied both motions and held that (1) appellant’s
motions are untimely pursuant to R.C. 2953.23, and (2) appellant
failed to satisfy either requirement outlined in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)
and (2). Further, the trial court held that res judicata bars
appellant from raising these issues in petitions for postconviction
relief because he either raised or could have raised the issues on
direct appeal. State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-2995, ¶ 6 (4th
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
4
Dist.)(Taylor III).
{¶7} After this court affirmed the trial court’s decision to
overrule appellant’s motion in Taylor II, appellant filed a motion
for new trial. The trial court overruled that motion and noted
that (1) the motion is untimely pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B), and (2)
the doctrine of res judicata barred appellant from raising issues
that he either raised or could have raised on direct appeal. This
court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Taylor, 2023-
Ohio-2995 (4th Dist.)(Taylor IV).
{¶8} On September 24, 2024, appellant filed a “Motion for
Relief from Judgment or Order for Fraud Upon the Court.” On
October 3, 2024, the trial court denied appellant’s motion. This
court concluded that res judicata barred appellant’s claims, and we
affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Taylor, 2025-Ohio-
1518 (4th Dist.)(Taylor V).
{¶9} This appeal represents the most recent filing since
appellant’s 2015 convictions for multiple serious drug offenses.
On November 25, 2024, appellant filed a pro se “Motion for Relief
from Judgment or Order from Fraud pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and a
Request for a Suppression Hearing.” On December 13, 2024, the
trial court denied appellant’s motion and request. This appeal
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
5
followed.
I.
{¶10} In his appeal of the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion
for relief from judgment or order from fraud and request for a
suppression hearing, appellant raises one assignment of error. The
trial court, however, concluded that res judicata barred
consideration of appellant’s motion and request. The court
concluded that (1) appellant’s petitions are untimely pursuant to
R.C. 2953.23, and (2) appellant failed to satisfy either of the
R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) and (2) requirements. Further, the trial court
cited this court’s holding that, “[A]ccording to the law of the
case doctrine ‘legal questions resolved by a reviewing court in a
prior appeal remain the law of that case for any subsequent
proceedings at both the trial and appellate levels.” Taylor IV,
2023-Ohio-2994, ¶ 11, citing Giancola v. Azem,
2018-Ohio-1694.
Because appellant has presented the issues outlined in his latest
filings in the past, the trial court denied them, and this court
affirmed the denial, the trial court concluded that those rulings
remain the law of the case.
{¶11} As appellee points out, in State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-
2994, appellant raised the same issue regarding a suppression
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
6
hearing. Taylor IV. We observed that it is important to recognize
that the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to direct
appeals, but “to all postconviction proceedings in which an issue
was or could have been raised.” Id. at ¶ 12, citing State v. Heid,
2016-Ohio-2756, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Montgomery,
2013-Ohio-4193, ¶ 42 (8th Dist.). We further noted that res
judicata barred appellant’s second motion to suppress because
appellant did not present evidence from outside of the record. Id.
at ¶ 3, citing State v. Carver,
2022-Ohio-2653 (4th
Dist.)(postconviction proceeding statute focus is whether a claim
in a postconviction petition involves evidence outside of the trial
record not available at the time of trial; if it does not, then res
judicata bars the claim.)
{¶12} In Taylor IV, we pointed out that this court affirmed
appellant’s convictions in 2016, “and counsel did, in fact, file a
pre-trial motion to suppress, that the trial court overruled.”
Seven years later, appellant sought to file a motion to suppress
and a motion for a Franks hearing, and we concluded that the trial
court correctly held that res judicata barred both motions. Id. at
¶ 17. Months later, appellant seeks to file a request for a
suppression hearing and a motion for relief from judgment or order
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
7
for fraud upon the court. Again, the trial court correctly held
that res judicata barred both motions.
{¶13} Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm
the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
8
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed. Appellee shall
recover of appellant the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court
directing the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to carry this
judgment into execution.
If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail has
been previously granted by the trial court or this court, it is
temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the
bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to
allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an
application for a stay during the pendency of the proceedings in
that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will
terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or
the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the
Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule
II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal
prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the
date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hess, J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion
For the Court
BY:_____________________________
Peter B. Abele, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a
LAWRENCE, 25CA2
9
final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal
commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
